QBUF vs. QCJL

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

QBUF (Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly) and QCJL (FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July) are both Nasdaq-100 funds. QBUF is passively managed, while QCJL is actively managed. Over the past year, QBUF returned 11.80% vs 14.60% for QCJL. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QBUF charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for QCJL.

Performance

QBUF vs. QCJL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF) and FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QBUF achieves a 4.88% return, which is significantly lower than QCJL's 5.40% return.

QBUF

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: 0.41%
• YTD: 4.88%
• 6M: 4.22%
• 1Y: 11.80%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

QCJL

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.52%
• YTD: 5.40%
• 6M: 5.37%
• 1Y: 14.60%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QBUF vs. QCJL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QBUF Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly	4.88%	11.08%	6.21%
QCJL FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July	5.40%	13.10%	4.38%

Correlation

The correlation between QBUF and QCJL is 0.80, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 22, 2024	0.82

The correlation between QBUF and QCJL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

QBUF vs. QCJL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

QBUF

QBUF Risk / Return Rank: 81
QBUF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
QBUF Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
QBUF Omega Ratio Rank: 83
QBUF Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
QBUF Martin Ratio Rank: 86

QCJL

QCJL Risk / Return Rank: 84
QCJL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
QCJL Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
QCJL Omega Ratio Rank: 88
QCJL Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
QCJL Martin Ratio Rank: 88

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

QBUF vs. QCJL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF) and FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	QBUF	QCJL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.26	2.59	-0.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.18	3.78	-0.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.53	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.13	3.66	+1.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.60	18.70	-1.10

QBUF vs. QCJL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QBUF Sharpe Ratio is 2.26, which is comparable to the QCJL Sharpe Ratio of 2.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QBUF and QCJL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

QBUF vs. QCJL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QBUF drawdown since its inception was -8.84%, smaller than the maximum QCJL drawdown of -11.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QBUF and QCJL.

Drawdown Indicators

	QBUF	QCJL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.84%	-11.18%	+2.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.31%	-4.00%	+1.69%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.80%	-1.04%	+0.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.67%	0.78%	-0.11%

Volatility

QBUF vs. QCJL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator Nasdaq-100 10 Buffer ETF - Quarterly (QBUF) is 0.41%, while FT Vest Nasdaq-100 Conservative Buffer ETF - July (QCJL) has a volatility of 0.70%. This indicates that QBUF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QCJL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QBUF	QCJL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.41%	0.70%	-0.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.71%	4.24%	-0.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.26%	5.68%	-0.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.36%	9.36%	-1.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.36%	9.36%	-1.00%

QBUF vs. QCJL - Expense Ratio Comparison

QBUF has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than QCJL's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

QBUF vs. QCJL - Dividend Comparison

Neither QBUF nor QCJL has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QBUF and QCJL in my portfolio?

QBUF and QCJL have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QBUF or QCJL?

QCJL has higher volatility (0.70%) compared to QBUF (0.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QBUF dropped -8.84% vs QCJL's -11.18%.

Which ETF is better, QBUF or QCJL?

On 1-year performance, QCJL leads with 14.60% vs 11.80% for QBUF. On fees, QBUF is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, QBUF has been the lower-risk option at 0.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QBUF or QCJL?

Over the 1-year period, QCJL has performed better with a 14.60% return vs 11.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QBUF or QCJL?

QBUF is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for QCJL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QBUF or QCJL?

QBUF and QCJL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between QBUF and QCJL?

They also come from different issuers: Innovator and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for QBUF and 0.90% for QCJL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QCJL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.59 vs 2.26), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.